There is no "right" answer to the purpose of life. We will never know. Eggtweedyegg, doll as he is, seems to express a twisted utilitarian view, however the purpose of life being "to be happy" is merely your opinion, that life is what it is, perhaps having its own meaning unto itself but nothing more. My doll Kendocubano expresses a general evolutionists perspective, which again is opinion. Nobody knows. However, I hardly doubt that life is meant merely for successful reproduction of ones genes for everyoone. That can only be individual perspective, nothing more. I am 20 years old. If I don't have kids, will my life be a waste?
The successful reproduction of genes is not a purpose. It is just a fact--it's the way the machinery of our biology is set up. This is not equivalent with purpose. I absolutely believe in the truth of evolution, but I wouldn't feel unfulfilled if I didn't have children--when it come to identity and purpose, I give priority to my reason and subjective experience over the desires of my body (which is far from saying I'm some kind of ascetic).
Purpose is our own invention, our own bias, our own warped feeling of self-importance.
But there's nothing wrong with that.
I can use my reason to figure out that I am a sentient being, and that because of this, I have desires, suffering, joy, etc. I can see that there are other sentient beings in the world.
Based solely on my own experience, I can figure that I'd like to do everything in my power to not cause others suffering. This is the golden rule, which Kant found a basis for in REASON, without need of any faith.
I suppose I subscribe to some sort of Buddhist/Stoic/Utilitarian philosophy, and I feel that I have empathy-based reason on my side in this.
I'd say utilitarians and evolutionists make about the least sense of anyone. Utilitarians believe that the purpose of life is to maximize the amount of happiness possible. So if say, 5 people would be slightly happier if say, Dr. Phil died, and their combined increase in happiness was higher than the happiness lost with Phil, then it is someone's duty to kill Dr. Phil(taking into account the happiness lost going to prison). By this logic, the "right" thing would be for someone to kill George Bush. If you take the whole world into consideration, the amount of happiness gained would be massive. Utilitarians believe in the quantity of happiness only, moralistic values are irrelevant(unless they increase happiness). So I would be careful before I called myself a utilitarian, although I know what you meant.
Evolutionists believe that the whole purpose of life is to successfully procreate. "Love" is merely a concept designed by homo-sapiens to them. A flurry of emotions that subsides quickly. Evolutionists believe love to be a facade.
I think a lot of people miss the point of religion. Arguing about whether said "flying spaghetti monster" exists or not is irrelevant. Personally, I think organized religion is a pretty big joke. However, the overall practices and sets of values make far more sense in many of them than an a lot many other interpretations of "the purpose of life". You cannot deny that a book like the Bible is filled with truths. A lot of it is misconstrued to represent false means. After all, it was originally written in Hebrew, a language where one word can often have a thousand different meanings. There are certain aspects of the Bible that I don't think correspond with its overall meaning. However, the overall context of it preaches the values of truth and love, and its definitions of good and evil are fairly universal even in modern society, no matter how desensitized we have become to some of them.
You're drastically misrepresenting the arguments of evolutionists and "utilitarians." Also, you're arguing against a box rather than a real point. That's bullshit. I don't care if you call me a goddamn "evolutionist" or what, but debate against a person, not a nebulous generic belief no one here has supported.
Who here has said they don't believe in love? What a crappy, obvious straw man.
Of course, my point was overly simple, and, intentionally, provocative. I was trying to present a purely biological view. It's a view that, intellectually, I truly believe to be true, but it also sounds dismissive of the things that make us human. And that, most certainly, is not something I mean to do.
I do believe that we are, primarily, biological organisms, designed to pass genes on to future generations. I don't believe in any kind of supernatural, extra corporeal entity that is independent of my body and mind. I believe that love is a construct of the mind, designed to promote family cohesion, as a strategy of maximizing the survival of offspring. I believe, however, that they are powerful phenotypic characteristics that help to define us and our species.
(Parenthetically, since this is not the religion thread, I believe, with Dennett, that religion is primarily memetic, and can serve the benefit of promoting group cohesion as a means of maximizing group survival.)
Even if love, art, music, etc are human constructs, evolved to serve some biologic benefit, that in no way detracts from their power, or importance. In fact, if anything, it makes them more powerful, since they represent, imo, the distillation of millenia of evolution, to provide the greatest emotional impact. I love my children deeply. I pour my hopes and dreams into them. They represent, for me, the culmination of my existence. "Dad" is the most important role I have ever played.
My intellectual recognition that that is a biologically determined, evolutionarily developed response, in no way blunts the power of the feeling.
This may seem random, but I'd ask you to indulge me. This summer, I had one of the most moving experiences of my life. On a trip to western France, I visited a cave, the grotte de Font du Gaume. There, I saw paintings that were made by people, more or less like you and I, more than 16,000 yrs ago (take that, young Earth creationists!). What moved me was not the simply beauty of the paintings, although they were beautiful. What brought me nearly to tears was the unbroken line of humanity, generation after generation, that linked me to those people. And, through me, to people 100, 1000, and, hopefully, 100,000 years from now. And, sharing the experience with my son and daughter was particularly important, because these children are the embodiment of my hope for immortality. Not some airy spiritual fantasy immortality. Not some "return to the earth," hippie immortality. Not some "Newton's law of thermodynamics" immortality. But real, flesh and blood people, who carry a little bit of me into the future.
--------------- I wonder if you're mythologizing me, like I do you
Posts: 1426 | Location: State of Disarray | Registered: 10 January 2007
No I am not misrepresenting them at all. I have actually read into these concepts. Maybe people use them in jest to describe something, but they may misunderstand the ideals these concepts are based around. When did I accuse anybody of anything? When did I say anything about anyone not believing in love? I did not misrepresent utilitarianism or evolutionists. You are the one who seems misinformed on these topics. I have actually taken courses dealing in both fields. You are embarassing yourself. Shut the fuck up. You don't need to blow up all the time, I'm one of the few people who makes any sense around here. I am done with this argument, I just want to talk about music and art. I think you misconstrue arguments on purpose to be a whiny little bitch. It's not my fault you are the one who is misinformed. Now go ahead and quote me, twist my words into a pile of pretension so you have something to argue against. Nothing in your post relates to mine in anyway. Try bringing something new to an argument instead of just being an elitist whiny fuck who doesn't have any clue what he is talking about.
Originally posted by Duuuuuuuuh: That was meant for Dork by the way, not Kendo(who actually has something to say).
You don't consider "fuck you" something to say?
quote:
Originally posted by Dick Coca-Cola!: No I am not misrepresenting them at all. I have actually read into these concepts. Maybe people use them in jest to describe something, but they may misunderstand the ideals these concepts are based around.
You're working down from the label rather than up from the concept. Why? What a useless and foolish way to argue.
quote:
Originally posted by Assface: When did I accuse anybody of anything? When did I say anything about anyone not believing in love?
Voila:
quote:
Evolutionists believe that the whole purpose of life is to successfully procreate. "Love" is merely a concept designed by homo-sapiens to them. A flurry of emotions that subsides quickly. Evolutionists believe love to be a facade.
Or is this just a straw man, an irrelevant little slice of bullshit?
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Irony: Shut the fuck up. You don't need to blow up all the time, I'm one of the few people who makes any sense around here. I am done with this argument, I just want to talk about music and art. I think you misconstrue arguments on purpose to be a whiny little bitch. It's not my fault you are the one who is misinformed. Now go ahead and quote me, twist my words into a pile of pretension so you have something to argue against. Nothing in your post relates to mine in anyway. Try bringing something new to an argument instead of just being an elitist whiny fuck who doesn't have any clue what he is talking about.
It will be a pleasure seeing you self destruct in response to the mildest provocation. You amuse me greatly. Please, stay, we haven't had a troll as lively as you since I arrived.
Even if love, art, music, etc are human constructs, evolved to serve some biologic benefit, that in no way detracts from their power, or importance. In fact, if anything, it makes them more powerful, since they represent, imo, the distillation of millenia of evolution, to provide the greatest emotional impact.
and
quote:
My intellectual recognition that that is a biologically determined, evolutionarily developed response, in no way blunts the power of the feeling.
EXACTLY. The human phenotype--subjective experience of love, transcendence, etc.--is in no way denigrated or proven to be illusory by its evolutionary origins. We simply are starting to understand the real material and neural basis of a realm once hopelessly outside of our reach and thus understandably monopolized by faith.
I find it ironic how you anticipate my "self-destruction" when that is precisely what you just did. You would love to say that you find me "amusing", because that would present the translucent elitist dipshit role you are trying to present yourself as, but you are obviously quite sensitive, and I have made you quite angry. Whenever big shot insecure elitists get pissed off at someone, they call it "amusing". I love that. You are unable to make any valid points, so instead you take shots at people who are way cooler than you (don't bother quoting that, you are way too predictable). I never said anything about anyone not believing in love, you quoted my discussion of a concept. Fuck you are dumb. I wonder why I bother with you. Unlike you, I don't take my internet life very seriously. Perhaps I insulted you in front of your society of forum members here, so now you need to save face. Go ahead then. Don't get so riled up. If you didn't take every comment to heart, we could have an intelligent conversation, that is, assuming you were intelligent. I haven't seen any legitimate contributions from you. Oh darling, maybe you should get a life, OK sweety? You've probably spent so much time on here you think you've established yourself. Poor baby. So comment back trying to be a tough guy again la di dah. You are not impressing anyone, this is just an internet forum! Besides, you prodded me first. You look for these arguments just for kicks I bet. Keep asserting yourself dipshit. I'm the one laughing, I doubt you are.
